Assad Must Be Removed From Power

The bloodshed in Syria shows no signs of abating; proud cities like Homs and Hama, Deraa and Deir Az-Zour have become cities of death and sorrow, where daily life has become infused with the grief of funeral processions and the fear of confrontations with the security forces. Even the holy month of Ramadan saw no let-up in the regime’s brutality.




The revulsion for the actions taken by the Assad regime as it seeks to crush peaceful, popular and legitimate protests demanding freedom and political reform. Indeed, here in America I find that this country — whose long tradition of freedom of speech often encourages political disagreement — is united in its condemnation of the violence in Syria. Forthright speeches have been made by various agencies; journalists have reported clearly the bloodshed on Syria’s streets. The UN has temporarily withdrawn its ambassador from Damascus and has candidly spoken out in the GCC, Arab League and at the UN Human Rights Council. 

U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford


The U.S ambassador to Syria too have joined in the chorus of condemnation against the Syrian regime, and expressed His support for the people of Syria. The concepts of Arab solidarity and dignity are alive and well in this corner of the Gulf.

In Europe, They have made clear their condemnation of the repression in Syria. On Sept 3, the EU took further decisive action against the regime by imposing a ban on the purchase, import and transport of crude oil and petroleum products from Syria. In addition, Europe-wide asset freezes and travel bans were announced against a further four Syrian businessmen and three entities.

Maher al-Assad

This followed similar action taken previously against fifty individuals and nine entities supporting the regime. Those targeted include President Assad himself and his brother Maher, Commander of the Syrian Army’s Fourth Division. The EU has also banned arms sales to Syria and suspended all aid funding to the country.

Despite this international condemnation, and in flagrant disregard of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria, the regime staggers on and takes ever more bloody steps to ensure its own survival. The UK Government is clear that the international community needs to act together to try and prevent further bloodshed and to protect the Syrian people from their brutal rulers. That is why they're focussed on getting agreement in the UN Security Council for a tough resolution on Syria. In Europe, as in many other countries in the region and across the world, they're speaking with one voice on the issue. The same voice as the people across the Arab world.

Syrians remain skeptical

Unfortunately, not all are convinced that action such as sanctions is warranted in Syria. They argue that national sovereignty is paramount, that President Assad’s wholly inadequate statements on ‘reform’ mean he retains the legitimacy to govern. This is strenuously unacceptable. Their task now is to counter the arguments of those members of the international community trying to block steps towards greater international action against the Assad regime. Their actions are indirectly prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people and as such are morally indefensible. If we succeed, I hope someday soon to pick up my morning paper and read about a bright future for the Syrian nation — a future its brave people so richly deserve.

Is Syria Ready To Accept Reforms?





The Syrian Poeple Make Their Final Demand

  



Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban


The Syrian government accepts it has to embrace reform and move towards democracy, a key advisor said today. Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, senior advisor to President Bashar al Assad, said he wants change because otherwise the country itself would be at risk to Muslim brotherhood’s influences.

Dr. Shaaban was spook to Jeremy Thompson, who is part of a small group of media allowed into Syria under government supervision.

She said: "Everybody now, both the opposition and the Government recognizes that the country is at stake and there is no other way except to go forward.

Jeremy Thompson



"In fact it will be very good for our country, for the people, this march towards democracy where political parties will compete and young men and women participate in political life. We look forward to a very different era in Syrian history."

The opposition claims that more than 1,400 people have been killed - many of them unarmed protesters - since pro-democracy demonstrations began in March.

But the government is blaming the deaths on a minority of religious extremists and pointed out that hundreds of military and police figures have also died.

Dr. Shaaban said "It is definitely a huge concern for us and we condemn the violence but they should condemn also the killing of our military people, our armed people, and our police. Over 500 military and police personnel have been killed by militant groups.”

She continued "Personally I feel there is an organized group, most likely religious extremists, who are conducting assassinations and killings. When you have a violent atmosphere, collateral damage happens."

She added: "We hope that by conducting and hastening the national dialogue, we will be able to isolate any militant or violent group and work together with the international community to overcome that big problem."

She also insisted: "We have no problem at all with peaceful demonstrations" and promised free access to all media outlets to all parts of Syria to cover the protests.

Critics of the authoritarian regime met in Damascus on Monday to call for a peaceful transition to democracy and an end al-Baath rule in Syria. 

President al-Assad's



The public summit was the first since the uprising against President al-Assad's rule started and was conducted with the consent of the government.

The regime appeared to be feeling the pressure of the protest movement and was anxious to show it was prepared to make concessions.

A final communiqué agreed at the meeting called for an immediate end to the crackdown, the withdrawal of the army from towns and villages and a peaceful move to democracy.

The government announced a national political dialogue would start on July 10 with all "factions, intellectual personalities, politicians" invited to take part.

Syria's state-run news agency said the agenda would include constitutional amendments, including access for other political parties as well as the ruling Baath Party.

The US welcomed the meeting but said it would not be a significant step forward unless the violent crackdown on civilians was brought to an end.

Week 13 Of The Syrian Revolt And Still Nothing From The UN



Mutinous Slodiers Burn Cars In Jis Al-Shughur, Syria


The United Nations Security Council is at an impasse regarding Syria but change is coming in any case.

Things may be reaching tipping point in Syria, as the Baathist regime tries and fails to crush the revolt that has spread from the rural south to central cities like Homs and Hama to Jisr Al-Shughur, on the northwestern border with Turkey.

But they are nowhere near tipping point on the Security Council: world powers there are struggling to agree on a draft resolution condemning a state repression that, according to the UN, has killed 1,100 Syrians and imprisoned 10,000 since March.

After weeks of zero progress, and stung by first reports of mutiny among Syria's 220,000-strong army in Jisr Al-Shughur -- Britain and France submitted a draft resolution on Syria on 8 June. It condemns the state's "systematic violation" of human rights, demands an end to the violence and calls on the regime to allow "unfettered" access to UN humanitarian and rights monitors.

But unlike a council resolution on Libya passed three months ago, it rules out military action, carries no threat of Syria's referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged crimes against humanity and wields no sanctions.

UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant


Diplomats said the text's mildness was designed to garner the widest possible support on the council. "We believe that the world should not stand silent in the face of the outrages that are happening" in Syria, said Britain UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant.

Permanent members Russia and China opposed the resolution, and may veto it. Damascus is Russia's closest Arab ally, bound by years of defence, intelligence and other relations. In the regime's current fight for survival it is clear with whom Moscow sides. A Security Council resolution "could be misunderstood by destructive forces in Syria who... declare they want regime change in Damascus," said Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin. China too prefers continuity to change.

But Russia and China are not alone on the council. Brazil, South Africa and India also oppose the resolution. And this has less to do with ancient ties than recent experience.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin



All three countries abstained on a Security Council resolution in March authorizing military action in Libya. They did so out of deference to Arab League calls for a no-fly zone and assurances that the UN mandate would be restricted to protecting civilians, mostly in the besieged rebel city of Benghazi.

Within hours official Arab support evaporated and NATO launched airstrikes armed with a thinly veiled remit of regime change. Brazil, South Africa and India do not want to be dealt the same hand twice.

Syria is "very pivotal when you look at Middle East stability. I think the last thing we want to see or do is to contribute to exacerbating tensions in what we consider to be one of the tensest regions in the world," said Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota.

There was "systematic concern" among certain countries on the council about the way the Libya resolution had been implemented, he said. And, unlike Libya, there had been no Arab call for UN involvement in Syria.

That is true, and not surprising. The sole Arab country on the council is Lebanon, a state that in the words of one diplomat is "constitutionally" bound not to oppose Syria at the UN or anywhere else.

From Iran to Saudi Arabia to even Israel the unspoken consensus is while few countries mind a Libya without Muammar Gadahfi, all fear that a Syria without the Baath could unleash sectarian civil wars of an Iraqi scale. The default regional position "will be to try to stick with what is in power right now for fear of what might come after," said Brian Katulis, an analyst with the Center for American Progress.

But if the official response is silence, protests are being heard elsewhere. On 8 June Syria's still largely inchoate opposition sent a letter to the Security Council. It said there was no hope of any transition to democracy with the current regime in Damascus. It had also lodged evidence with the ICC chief prosecutor alleging that crimes against humanity have been committed in Syria since March.

While calling on the world to act, it said it would oppose any resolution that is "modeled on the Libyan situation". Finally, it urged "the powerful democracies of Brazil, India and South Africa -- whose struggles for freedom against repression, colonialism and apartheid have inspired people across the Middle East -- to lead the way in supporting the region's peaceful struggle".

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan


Syria's rebels may find more traction with a powerful democracy closer to home. Of all the states rocked by the Arab spring, Turkey has fared best. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was the first leader to tell Hosni Mubarak to slake his people's thirst for freedom or stand down. And having first tried dialogue with Gadahfi, Turkey bowed to the enormous weight of global opinion that the Libyan leader too would have to go.

Erdogan urged dialogue on President Bashar Al-Assad, steeled by the growing détente between the two countries. But faced with 10,000 Syrian refugees seeking shelter on its soil -- and with calls for reform ignored -- Turkey has broken with what had been its closet Arab alley.

The Turkish leader has denounced Syrian army actions against its own people as "savagery". He has said Al-Assad is "no longer possible to defend". And he has warned Istanbul would not tolerate "another Hama", a reference to Hafez Al-Assad's crushing of an uprising in the town in 1982 that left at least 10,000 Syrians dead. Finally, he has hinted Istanbul would support action taken by the Security Council against Syria, the first regional power to do so.

Just Like Daddy



Five weeks ago President Obama delivered an address on the Middle East in which he said it would be “a top priority” of his administration to oppose violent repression and support democratic transitions across the region, using “all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal.” He singled out Syria, where the regime of President Bashar al-Assad has gunned down hundreds of peaceful protesters, choosing what Mr. Obama called “the path of murder.”

“The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests,” the president declared. “It must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. It must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities.” As for Mr. Assad, “he can lead that transition” to democracy, “or get out of the way.”

Nearly a month later, Mr. Assad has done none of those things; instead, he has escalated his war against his own people. Over the weekend an elite Army division staged a full-scale assault on the town of Jisr al-Shoughour, forcing most of its population of 50,000 to flee. Nearby Turkey reports that more than 8,500 refugees have crossed its border. Now Syrian tanks are surrounding the town of Maarat al-Nouman, population 100,000, as well as two other towns near the border with Iraq. Human rights groups say the number killed has risen above 1,300.

It seems fair to ask what Mr. Obama has done in response, given his pledge to employ all of the “tools” at the administration’s disposal. The answer can be summed up in one word: nothing. Apart from a passing reference at a May 25 news conference, the president has not spoken in public about Syria since his May 19 address. The token U.S. sanctions applied to the Assad regime at the time of the speech have not been stepped up. While Britain and France have pressed — unsuccessfully — for a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian repression, the United States has taken a back seat.

The French government has adopted the position that the Assad regime has lost the legitimacy to govern Syria. But the Obama administration has not abandoned the notion that the dictator could still steer Syria to democracy — as ludicrous as that sounds. The administration’s former State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, tweeted this week that it’s “odd” that Obama thinks Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign but not Assad. Why, he wondered, does the president send the message that “sending lewd tweets violates public service, but not killing people?”

The administration has excused its passivity by saying that it does not want to “get ahead” of allies in the region, and that it worries about the consequences of a regime collapse. But Mr. Assad’s violence is already causing serious problems for Turkey and for Israel, which has twice faced incursions on its territory from Syria by Palestinian refugees organized by the regime. Other U.S. Arab allies are observing Mr. Obama’s passivity with dismay: “Why doesn’t the United States have a policy?” one senior official from the Persian Gulf recently asked us.

In fact, Mr. Obama enunciated a clear policy four weeks ago. He said the United States would use all its power to stop violent repression and promote democratic transition in countries such as Syria. He said his words “must be translated into concrete actions.” But he has yet to act.

The Difference Between The Syrians And The Syrians: A story of rivalry

Rivalry among the country's various religious and ethnic minorities has been a perennial source of instability in Syria. During the 1980s, the primary cause of conflict was domination of top-level political and military posts by the minority Alawi community to which Assad belongs.

More worrisome perhaps was intra-Alawi friction. For example, some Alawis honored the memory of former political figure Major General Muhammad Umran, assassinated in Lebanon in 1972, reportedly by Syrian agents. Likewise, some Baath Party members remained loyal to the faction Assad overthrew in his 1970 Corrective Movement. This group, named the 23 February Movement, supported ex-Party Secretary Salah Jadid, ex-president Nureddin Atassi, and ex-prime minister Yusuf Zuayyin - all three of whom were incarcerated in Syria.

Assad


 Assad has repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, attempted to negotiate with these figures, offering them freedom in return for their approval of his government. In many respects, the Assad regime was more concerned with the activities of the 23 February Movement than with the open revolt of the Muslim Brethren.

Whereas the fundamentalists carried out terrorist attacks, the 23 February Movement staged several well-planned but abortive coup attempts in the 1980s and, because Umran and Jadid were Alawis, threatened to split the Alawi community.

On the other hand, Sunni Islamic fundamentalists have posed the most sustained and serious threat to the Baath regime. The government referred to these militants as the Muslim Brethren or Brotherhood (Ikhwan al Muslimin), although this is a generic term describing a number of separate organizations. The most important groups included the Aleppo-based Islamic Liberation Movement, established in 1963; the Islamic Liberation Party, founded in Jordan in the 1950s; Shabab Muhammad (Muhammad's Youth); Jund Allah (God's Soldiers); and At Tali'a al Muqatila (The Fighting Vanguard), established by the late Marwan Hadid in Hamah in 1965 and led in 1987 by Adnan Uqlah.

The At Tali'a al Muqatila group, which did not recognize the spiritual or political authority of the exiled veteran leader of Syria's Sunni fundamentalists, Issam al Attar, bore the brunt of the actual fighting against the regime. In the early 1980s, the Muslim Brethren staged repeated hit-and-run attacks against the Syrian regime and assassinated several hundred middle-level government officials and members of the security forces and about two dozen Soviet advisers.

 The armed conflict between the Muslim Brethren and the regime culminated in full-scale insurrection in Aleppo in 1980 and in Hamah in February 1982. The government responded to the Hamah revolt with brutal force, crushing the rebellion by killing between 10,000 and 25,000 civilians and leveling large parts of the city.

On the third anniversary of the Hamah rebellion in February 1985, the government announced an amnesty for Muslim Brotherhood members. About 500 of the Muslim Brethren were released from prison, and those who had fled abroad were encouraged to return to Syria. As a result of the amnesty many members of At Tali'a al Muqatila surrendered to government authorities. 

Terror attack Damascus March 13 1986



Following the Hamah uprising, extremist antiregime Muslim groups in Syria seemed fragmented and presented little threat to the Assad regime. The next series of major antiregime terrorist attacks occurred when a truck exploded in northern Damascus on March 13, 1986, followed by explosions on buses carrying military personnel on April 16. A Lebanese, claiming he had been sent by the Iraqi government, publicly confessed to the March incident and was hanged. Outside observers, however, were unable to verify his or Iraqi complicity. Other potential instigators included Lebanese Christian groups in retaliation for the Syrian role in artillery shelling and car bomb explosions in East Beirut, PLO factions such as al Fatah, and Israel.

Despite these dangers to Syrian internal security, the overall situation in the mid- and late 1980s was stable compared with the situation between 1946 and 1970. The traditional centers of dissatisfaction - students, labor unions, and dissident Communist Party organizations - were thoroughly infiltrated by Syrian security personnel and in early 1987 posed no significant threat to the government. However, Syrian society is a mosaic of social groups whose interests and loyalties have often conflicted. President Assad, more than any leader in the Syria's modern history, has been able to focus these conflicting interests and loyalties on national goals. Nevertheless, centrifugal forces, such as sectarianism, persisted in this volatile Arab nation, and the armed forces will probably long remain the ultimate arbiters of power.

U.S. awaits world support to step in on Syrian strife

Syrian President Bashar "Butcher" Assad

Each day brings more atrocities in Syria. Fears of an imminent massacre by the regime has led thousands of refugees to flee into Turkey over the past few days. Yet the international community has been reluctant to outright demand that Syrian President Bashar Assad step down.

Daniel Kurtzer



Daniel Kurtzer, who has served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt and Israel and now heads Middle East policy studies at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, spoke with editorial writer Julie O’Connor about why our ambiguous role in Libya has prevented stronger action in Syria.

Q. It was the fear of atrocities that led the West to intervene in Libya. Yet in Syria, where there’s already substantial evidence of civilian killings and torture, we’ve held back. Why this caution?

A. There are still significant holes in the analysis and policy underpinning what we’re doing in Libya. We intervened there on the basis of a vague notion, an international law called the Responsibility to Protect. But it’s very unclear what that means in practical terms. In Libya, we’re using it as a cover to support the rebels and oppose the regime, and in some ways, we’re using it for regime change — which is not actually what it’s supposed to represent. Given these uncertainties, there’s also going to be uncertainty about starting down that road in Syria. There’s been much greater difficulty in bringing about an international consensus to act.

The idea that civilians were being targeted by the regime, especially in Benghazi, was clearly a major factor in our intervention in Libya. The problem is, what do you do after you’ve protected that population? Do you then stop, or do you proceed?

Q. Do you believe the situation in Syria demonstrates the limitations of U.S. power?

A. I think it demonstrates the limitations of operating on the basis of this Responsibility to Protect. It’s not just U.S. policy; it’s a much larger question. If there’s something called a Responsibility to Protect, does it only extend to cases in which you can have an international consensus? Does it allow for the U.S. to act unilaterally? And is it wise to do so?

Q. Some say Turkey’s alliance with Syria’s protestors may lead Washington and the West to take a more assertive stance on Assad. Do you think that will happen?

A. It’s hard to tell. Turkey abstained on the United Nations Security Council’s resolution that authorized the use of force in Libya. While Turkey did not block NATO from acting in Libya, it certainly was not happy about it. The difference now may be the severity of what’s happening in Syria. Also, there’s an immediate impact on Turkey, from Syrian refugees crossing the border. If the Turks are now as concerned as we are about what’s going on in Syria, it may build on our NATO alliance and lead us to join forces in a way that’s helpful in relation to Syria.

Q. The U.S. and much of Europe have asked the United Nations Security Council to condemn the regime’s attacks, suggesting they amount to crimes against humanity. Is that likely to pass? What effect would it have?

A. I don’t know if it will pass, but it seems to have the support of a number of council members already. It may not stop Syria, but it certainly has an impact. Syria is a member of the international community and is concerned with public opinion, and may see this as the first step toward stronger sanctions and actions.

Q. Why not call for military action?

A. I think the U.S. is being careful about saying anything about military actions until we can build international support for it.

Q. Human Rights Watch recently came out with a report recounting Syrian war crimes, many against children. What has been the impact of the regime’s killings of children like 13-year-old Hamza al-Khatib, whose body showed signs of torture?

A. I think it’s played a tremendous role in eroding any kind of potential sympathy for the regime. It certainly burst the balloon of people’s beliefs that Assad was somehow a different kind of dictator, a benevolent dictator. Nobody should have believed it, and certainly nobody believes it now.

Q. How likely do you think it is a repeat of the infamous 1982 Hama massacre ordered by Assad’s father, which killed tens of thousands?

A. It’s quite possible. The Syrian government is showing no restraint, and it’s only a question of magnitude. If they have to kill a lot of people, they will. They’re showing no reason to suggest otherwise.

Q. Assad paints a picture of a bloody sectarian war developing out of this uprising if he falls from power. What are the chances of that?

A. I think it’s unlikely. He’s using it as an excuse, 100 percent. It’s a classic that goes back 300 years, to the French Revolution: “Après moi, le déluge,” meaning “After me, the flood.” That’s what French King Louis XV argued. It’s a false argument always used by dictators to justify continued repression.

Syrians Protest Troops' Killing of Children



More Violence In Syria






President Bashar al-Assad


Demonstrations erupted across Syria on today in response to opposition groups' call for protests about casualties among children during in recent weeks of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

Reuters news agency reported Syrian troops were firing on protesters in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor as rallies continue nationwide in defiance of a government order against gatherings.



Opposition organizers say at least 25 children have died in the recent violence, which has killed about 1,000 people.

Among the young victims is a 13-year-old boy who activists say was tortured and killed by security forces. Syrian authorities say unspecified armed groups killed the boy, not government forces.

Syrian opposition figures wrapped up a two-day meeting in Turkey Thursday with a call for President Assad's immediate resignation. They said they are committed to do whatever is necessary to "bring down" Assad's regime and begin the process of holding new elections to end autocratic rule.

The 300 delegates issued the call in a joint declaration as Syrian forces continued to pound the central town of Rastan, killing at least 15 people, according to activists.

Witnesses say a number of buildings in Rastan have been destroyed. On Wednesday, rights groups put the civilian death toll in that part of Syria at 41 or more, including two young girls. 

Hillary Clinton



In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that the legitimacy of President Assad's government has "nearly run out," but that the international community is not yet united on how to deal with the Syrian government's violent tactics.

U.S. officials say they are in contact with the Syrian opposition.

Separately, the U.N. secretary-general's special advisers on genocide prevention expressed grave concern over the loss of life in Syria. They said Thursday they are particularly alarmed by reports that security forces deliberately attacked unarmed civilians.